Most House committee members say they'd rather wait on Indiana gay marriage ban

Most of the 13 members of the House Judiciary Committee, which must green-light the proposed amendment before it reached the full chamber for a vote, said they’d rather wait until next year – at the earliest – to take up the issue.

Four of those members say they support the amendment that would block Indiana from legally recognizing gay couples’ relationships. Three oppose it. And six said they haven’t firmly decided how they would vote.

Those who are on the fence and want a one-year delay pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling expected to come this summer, as well as complaints from business groups that say the ban would harm their efforts to attract top talent to the state.

“Conceptually, I am in favor of marriage being defined as between a man and a woman. But we have to get it right if we’re going to put it in the constitution,” said Rep. Dan Leonard, R-Huntington.

Leaders in the Republican-dominated General Assembly have pushed the issue in previous years, but this year their interest has waned.

House Speaker Brian Bosma – the Indianapolis Republican who in 2004 declared a similar effort “the most critical piece of the people’s business” – on Thursday brushed off reporters’ inquiries on how the chamber would handle the amendment.

“Anybody have a real question, an important question?” he said.

Senate President Pro Tem David Long of Fort Wayne said Republicans there haven’t discussed the amendment in caucus meetings yet.

“It’s not the highest priority, obviously,” Long said.

Lawmakers started the clock on the three-step process to amend a ban of same-sex marriage, civil unions or anything like them into Indiana’s constitution in 2011, when both the House and the Senate overwhelmingly approved the measure.

If both chambers pass the exact same legislation again in either 2013 or 2014, voters would get the final say through a November 2014 statewide referendum. But if lawmakers don’t approve it either this year or next, the clock would reset and the earliest such a ban could make it onto the ballot would be 2018.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Greg Steuerwald, R-Avon, said he has not decided whether or when his committee would take up the issue.

Steuerwald and three of his fellow Republicans – Rep. Thomas Washburne of Evansville, Rep. Eric Koch of Bedford and Rep. Jud McMillin of Brookville – said they support the ban.

But McMillin and Washburne said they want to wait until next year’s legislative session to vote on it.

“The Supreme Court’s going to have something to say that’ll impact how Indiana wants to proceed, and we ought to take a look at what they say,” Washburne said.

Opposing the measure are three Democrats – Rep. Ed DeLaney of Indianapolis, Rep. Ryan Dvorak of South Bend and Rep. Vernon Smith of Gary – who would prefer to see lawmakers drop the issue entirely.

“The last thing you’d want to do is set this train in motion and then have the Supreme Court derail it. The Democratic position is that we’d like to never see this, but a year from now is better than now,” DeLaney said.

Six House Judiciary Committee members say they are undecided, including five Republicans and one Democrat.

The Democrat is former House Speaker Pat Bauer of South Bend, who noted that he blocked Republicans from pushing the measure in 2004 and again between 2007 and 2010. “I’m going to reserve judgment on that if they force it,” he said.

The Republicans are Leonard, Rep. Peggy Mayfield of Mooresville, Rep. Wendy McNamara of Mount Vernon, Rep. Phyllis Pond of New Haven and Rep. Jerry Torr of Carmel.

Mayfield is a freshman, but the others all voted for the ban in 2011.

McNamara said she would “consider supporting it in the future,” but that she wants to wait for the Supreme Court to rule.

“It’s difficult to get something out of the constitution once you put it in, no matter what the subject,” she said.

Leonard said his concern is that businesses – most prominently, Columbus-based engine maker Cummins Inc. – oppose the amendment’s second sentence, which bars any legal recognition similar to marriage. “I think it might be better if we take that out,” Leonard said.

Mayfield said she supports family values but since she’s a freshman, she wants to hear both sides’ arguments. Torr said he didn’t want to address his concerns, but doesn’t know how he would vote.

Pond said that “some of my friends are for it; some of my friends are against it.” She said she does not oppose civil unions, but that it’s too late to remove that portion if the amendment is to go on 2014’s ballot.

She said she will “listen respectfully, carefully, and I probably will not change my vote.” But, she said, lawmakers should “focus entirely on the economic issues” and wait until 2014 to vote on the ban.

Or, better yet, Pond said, “about 10 years from now.”